Board index FlightGear The FlightGear project

FG 2.4 consistency

Questions about the FlightGear organisation, website, wiki etc.

FG 2.4 consistency

Postby eekpo » Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:27 pm

canceled
Last edited by eekpo on Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
eekpo
Retired
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 8:23 am

Re: FG 2.4 consistency

Postby stuart » Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:44 pm

(Response copied from the -devel list)

eekpo wrote in Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:27 pm:The answer from these devel team persons, was a joke, at least to us,
they said "we will include your project with FG 2.6" ( February ?),
they probably make fun of us ( do you consider newbee are not serious
?).


As one of the people who originally replied to the forum
post regarding an update to the Catalina, I should respond to this.

It certainly was not my intention to make fun of you, nor to make a joke.

eekpo wrote in Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:27 pm:That model will be again not consistent , how will be FG 2.6 ? we
don't know.
In spite of the good level of our team, nobody here is able to answer
that question, even if we are studying carefully the progress on
JSBSim-devel ( congratulation to the jsbsim team ).

Don't tell us we can work and update in parallel since testing a model
is ever BEHIND a WORKING FG program.


The Catalina update is quite a significant change. However, once it is
applied after the 2.4.0 release, any further updates to keep it in sync
with the upcoming 2.6.0 release will be minor, and therefore appropriate
up until a much later point in the release cycle.

eekpo wrote in Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:27 pm:We don't mind the lost of "our fives persons" time spent on the
Catalina, since we can learn from it.
We have learnt we must not contribute to GPL update within FG, since
the FG team answers does not convince us to contribute, we do not want
to waste time.


I'm very sorry you feel this way. Fortunately most FG developers do not,
otherwise FG would cease to exist.

-Stuart
G-MWLX
User avatar
stuart
Moderator
 
Posts: 1469
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:56 am
Location: Edinburgh
Callsign: G-MWLX

Re: FG 2.4 consistency

Postby xiii » Wed Jul 13, 2011 4:09 pm

Hi guys,

As a french member of the modelers community, (I did work on A-10, f-14b, A-6, KNUQ, KLSV, and the Vinson) I'm quite surprised about how things here are moving to a sad story.

I wouldn't dive in the details but I would rather emphasis on the essential points.

Flightgear developers and modelers (users too) did wait for a long-long time for people having enough skills and having the possibility to give a huge quantity of work time concentrated in a short period, so they can handle a new release process. A new release process was necessary, the software and the environment (people, technical resources like versioning system) did change over time. In the same time those people established a road map so FG has 2 release a year instead of 1 release every 2 years. This is a huge improvement and maybe the best improvement for the project since a long time.

Now that the release process has been publicly discussed on the devel list and widely accepted by the community, we, modelers have to see how we can help, together, so the release get finished with efficiency. At that time everybody should concentrate on the success of the project as a whole.

People here, know me has a slow contributor, and as such it took me time to understand how deeply important and how complex is a release process. So I'm not surprised when people, trully involved in a big and nice aircraft project can be sad when they discover that they missed the deadline, meanly because of poor team coordination. But the time line was at least discussed on the devel list which is the most important thing to read when contributing.

That's said, waiting for 17th July is not a big deal, there was no offense from the FG release team, nor from the commiters, and users will benefit from a better organization and more frequent releases. Our own aircraft projects, like my Hawkeye or the next f-14b radar feature can wait, on the other hand, everyone did wait a too long time for a consistent release process.

About the technical details explained on the other thread: http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12423&p=129864#p129864, well, here in France we use to say, "there ain't be any problems, there are only solutions" ;-)

Keep on the good work,

Alexis
If the engines are Pratt and Whitney, the seats best be Martin Baker
xiii
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:04 pm

Re: FG 2.4 consistency

Postby eekpo » Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:13 pm

canceled
Last edited by eekpo on Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
eekpo
Retired
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 8:23 am

Re: FG 2.4 consistency

Postby xiii » Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:35 pm

eekpo, or whoever you are,

I'm really sorry, I'm just an aircraft modeler, I really like Flightgear project and its team and I don't understand much about what you are talking.

All I can add is: I just hope you'll continue to get fun developing simulated aircrafts. That's all.

Alexis
If the engines are Pratt and Whitney, the seats best be Martin Baker
xiii
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 10:04 pm

Re: FG 2.4 consistency

Postby Figaro » Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:27 pm

Back on track gentlemen.
User avatar
Figaro
 
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:23 pm
Callsign: 4L-FIG
OS: Elementary 5.0 Juno


Return to The FlightGear project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests